Read Green Left Weekly, our sister publication

GLW Radio on 3CR

Syndicate

Syria: Between popular resistance and foreign intervention

By Khalil Habash

January 12, 2012 -- Counterfire via International Socialist Group (Scotland) -- The Syrian popular movement has witnessed an increasing mobilisation
in recent weeks – the most important since last summer – despite the
continuous violent repression. Defections within the army are still
happening on a growing scale. Ten months after the beginning of the
revolution – and despite the 6000 martyrs – the popular movement is
continuing, though there are profound political divisions among the
opposition.

The divisions among the opposition

The two most well-known political opposition groups are Syrian
National Council (SNC) and National Coordination Committee for
Democratic Change (NCCDC), in addition to the Local Coordinating
Committees and other groups on the ground. Many political groups are not
yet represented by the two main opposition groups.

The attempt to unite the opposition failed after the SNC withdrew
from the deal. This came a few days after signing an agreement with the
NCCDC on a common political program which refused a Western military
intervention in Syria. Many in the SNC, especially the liberals and the
Muslim Brotherhoods linked to the Western powers, rejected this
agreement because it refused any foreign military Western intervention.

Both groups have been the target of criticism from Syrians for their
constant attacks on each other – and for being more interested in power
than helping in practical ways the struggle of the popular movement on
the ground.

A number of other problems can be linked to both groups. The SNC is a
group of opponents in exile and dominated by political parties linked
to Western imperialism and their clients in the Gulf, notably the Muslim
Brotherhood and liberals. They have called several times for a foreign
military intervention in Syria. They have also answered favourably to
Western imperialists’ demands in declaring that a post-Assad Syria would
weaken its ties with Iran, while cutting the military alliance with
Hamas and Hezbollah.

The future Syria would have a closer relationship with Gulf
countries, which are allied to Western countries, and would use
negotiations only to reclaim the occupied Golan Heights. The SNC has
concentrated on assuring these Western powers of its readiness to follow
their political interests, in complete contradiction of the interests
of the Syrian people, rather than reinforce the popular movement inside
the country.

The NCCDC is a group inside the country, gathering nationalists,
leftists and Kurds. They refuse any foreign military intervention in an
attempt to manipulate the revolution. They don’t want Syria “to become
the victims of a war by proxy”, referring to the regional rivalry
between Gulf Arab states and Iran.

It nevertheless lost increasing popularity among the Syrian people by
not demanding until recently the overthrow of the regime – it instead
proposed "dialogue" with the allegedly "moderate" parts of the regime.
The NCCDC called for a gradual, scheduled transfer of power.

What effect would a foreign military intervention have in Syria?
Observe the Iraqi or Afghan scenarios: both without democracy, social
justice and stability after ten years. The ongoing human catastrophe in
both countries is indescribable.

The Libyan experience has also shown how destructive a foreign
military intervention can be. The death toll in Libya when NATO
intervened was perhaps around 1000-2000 (according to UN estimates).
Eight months later it is probably more than 10 times that figure.
Estimates of the numbers of dead over the last eight months – as NATO
leaders vetoed ceasefires and negotiations – range from 10,000 up to
50,000. The National Transitional Council puts the losses at 30,000 dead
and 50,000 wounded.

Foreign military intervention would also threaten to put the country
under occupation for years. Again we can refer to the Iraqi and
Afghanistan examples where US forces are still on the ground, while the
new authorities in Libya have asked for NATO forces to stay in the
country.

The 'Strike of Dignity' campaign and the Syrian Free Army

The “Strike of Dignity” and civil disobedience campaign, which was
launched on the December 11, 2011, has been a success with massive
demonstrations throughout the country, while at least four areas of
Damascus and two in Aleppo were occupied by large groups of
demonstrators for the first time. The Local Coordination Committees
(LCC) claimed that 150,000 people were chanting in front of monitors in
the capital, with security forces watching on. Strikes happened all over
the cities of the country, while universities have also witnessed
increasing demonstrations. The LCC documented 461 points of
demonstrating on January 6.

Defections from state employees have also increased during this
period, as part of the Dignity Strike campaign. The most important
resignation was from Mahmoud Souleiman Hajj Hamad, the head inspector of
the country’s defence ministry and also an auditor for the interior
ministry, in protest of the regime’s repression. Hamad said the
government has spent about $40 million on loyalist militias (shabihas) to
crush demonstrations since March.

The presence of more than 100 monitors sent from the Arab League
since December 23 has not stopped the violent crackdown, as one report
describes it: “Violence is continuing, the monitoring mission has seen
bodies in the streets and Syrian troops have not withdrawn from cities.”
Also, the Syrian government has only very partially complied with its
pledge to release political prisoners.

The Arab League has said it will not withdraw the observers but will
instead focus on reinforcing the mission and try to allow the monitors
to work more independently of Syrian authorities. The LCC and other
opposition groups have described the mission as a complete failure,
while accusing the regime of misleading the observers by taking them to
areas loyal to the government, changing street signs to confuse them,
and sending supporters into hostile neighbourhoods to give false
testimony. But more importantly, some Syrians say it is a toothless
mission that buys more time for the President Bashar al-Assad to
suppress opponents.

In the meantime the regime has used various tools to try to divide
the popular movement. The usual one is the sectarian tool by the
assassinations of persons of different sects in a clear attempt to
trigger retaliations which could fall in some sort of civil war.

But Syrians have mostly repeated their call for the unity of the
Syrian people. In Qamishli, for example, protesters usually raise the
Syrian independence flags along the side with the Kurds state flags. All
over Syria people also chant for unity between Muslims, Druze,
Christians and Alawis, while many banners are demanding a democratic and
civic state.

The second tool of the regime is the use of bombing and explosions in
popular areas and accusing extremists and salafists groups of the
crime, just as the in the 1980s during the uprising against this same
regime. The opposition has dismissed the government’s accusations and
said that they were the work of the regime, just like before.

The Syrian Free Army (SFA), composed of the soldiers who refused to
shoot on the protesters and defected from the regime’s army, are
increasing its numbers. Their exact numbers are very hard to tell,
between 10,000 to 20,000 according to some sources.

The last important defection was from a senior military officer in
the city of Hama with up to 50 of his soldiers. They have joined the
ranks of the SFA, whose main mission is to protect protesters during
their demonstrations. They did attack a security forces centre few
months ago, but now concentrate on protecting the protesters.

Syria’s main opposition groups inside the country have refused to
call for a general militarisation of the revolution. They have
nevertheless welcomed the role of the SFA in defending the peaceful
protests against the attacks of regime forces. The SFA is coordinating
its actions with the different civil opposition groups on the ground
struggling peacefully against the regime.

The role of the SFA and its coordination with the various opposition
groups actually helps the Syrian revolution and the popular movement to
keep ongoing its peaceful campaign of civil disobedience and strikes,
which as a reminder is the main and primordial characteristic of the
revolutionary process in Syria.

The right to defend itself against the regime’s repression by the
security forces is actually not in contradiction with the peaceful
struggle of the popular movement and the overthrow of the regime.

The regime supporters are decreasing everyday and are more and more
reduced to the security services and a section of the bourgeoisie in
Damascus and Aleppo, which benefited from this dictatorship.

Local groups and coordination committees are the effective and direct
organisational format for the revolution. The political groups should
support them and work on coordinating a clear and unified revolutionary
strategy. From there we can build a revolutionary coalition gathering a
majority.

The popular movement has united the different sections of Syria’s
society and especially the downtrodden of all sects who suffered from
the authoritarian and neoliberal policies of this clientelist and
criminal regime. The Syrian people won’t step down and they will not
stop until the regime is overthrown.